Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Seeking rectification of an alleged mistake - question of jurisdiction of this tribunal - error apparent on the face of record or not - The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim, stating that it had considered the jurisdiction issue in light of previous judgments and amendments. Since both parties chose not to argue the jurisdiction issue during the hearing, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the case on its merits. - The Tribunal emphasized that when a counsel makes submissions, it is presumed to be on the instructions of the appellant. Hiring a new counsel post-judgment to raise new grounds or find fault with the previous counsel's submissions is not a valid approach.
Seeking rectification of an alleged mistake - question of jurisdiction of this tribunal - error apparent on the face of record or not - The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim, stating that it had considered the jurisdiction issue in light of previous judgments and amendments. Since both parties chose not to argue the jurisdiction issue during the hearing, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the case on its merits. - The Tribunal emphasized that when a counsel makes submissions, it is presumed to be on the instructions of the appellant. Hiring a new counsel post-judgment to raise new grounds or find fault with the previous counsel's submissions is not a valid approach.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
